Moral Consequences and Choices

The first question that arises from this statement is what is a good moral choice. How can we determine what good is, when there are many differing opinions? Is an action good if the nature or the intentions of the action are considered good? Or is it the consequences of the action that determine the goodness of the action? Is it a combination of both the intentions and the consequences of the action, or the actions´ effect on society?
The New Collins Concise Dictionary lists over thirty different usages´s of the word good. The definitions range from "morally excellent or admirable; virtuous; righteous" to "valid or genuine" and "satisfying or gratifying."
The Greek philosopher Aristotle defined good as something that fulfils its purpose e.g. a good tool is one which performs its function, regardless of the possible hazard, which it may present if that function is abused.
The Roman Catholic tradition takes a very different view; the deontological view. Other denominations and religions, including atheists can also take this view. There are two types of deontology. The Roman Catholic tradition relies heavily on the idea of the nature of the action e.g. the main purpose of sexual intercourse is the production of children. Therefore, sexual intercourse is good as long as it produces children. Anything which prevents sexual intercourse from producing children must be bad; such as contraception and homosexuality.
The second deontological view is Rule Deontology. This view considers an action to be good if a set of rules is followed. For Christians this would be the Ten Commandments and the Commandments of Jesus. However, an atheist could still be a deontologist by following the general rules of society e.g. do not steal.
A teleologist would consider an action to be good as long as the consequences of the action were of a pleasing nature. Even if the intention of the action is considered to be evil, but the action inadvertently produces consequences that are pleasing, the action is then considered to be good e.g. someone pushes a child out of the way of a car. The child is out of danger, which is a pleasing outcome. However, was this the original intention? What if the person driving the car was a relative of the person who saves the child´s life, and the actor may not have wanted his relative charged with dangerous driving or worse. Is the action still good? From a teleologist point of view, because the consequences were pleasing, the action would still be considered good.
Another view is the Utilitarian view, which goes as far as self-sacrifice if necessary. This is a 19th century theory developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The principle behind this view is that something is good if it provides the greatest good for the greatest number. Bentham uses this in the terms of the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people. To apply this Bentham developed a method for measuring the pleasure and pain an action produces. This is known as The Hedonic Calculus. In this calculus, seven elements need to be weighed:

Join now!

1. The intensity of the pleasure/pain caused.
2. The duration of the pleasure/pain.
3. The certainty/uncertainty of the pleasure/pain resulting.
4. The propinquity/remoteness of the pleasure/pain.
5. The fecundity of the pleasure/pain, the chance of a succession of pleasures/pains.
6. The purity of the pleasure/pain not being succeeded by pleasure/pain.
7. The extent of the pleasure/pain or the number of people involved.

For example, a man known to be rich passes by a poor man badly in need of a drink in the street. The rich man accidentally drops his wallet; the poor man picks it up and finds £50 inside. Should the man return the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay